Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Indo German Tool Room, challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 09.06.2017 in Original Application No.2190/2013, which allowed the application filed by respondent no.1 employee. The Tribunal directed a de novo enquiry against the employee on two grounds: (1) failure to provide a defence representative or lawyer to represent the employee in the departmental enquiry, and (2) failure to provide an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The High Court examined the enquiry proceedings and found that while the employee was given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in respect of certain charges and reserved the right, he never availed it. However, in respect of other charges, statements of witnesses were not recorded, and the Presenting Officer's say was recorded, and at times the Presenting Officer sought time to cross-examine the department's own witnesses. The Court found no fault with the Tribunal's finding regarding failure to provide cross-examination opportunity. Regarding the defence representative, the Court noted that there is no provision in the manual and no legal or constitutional right to a defence representative in an in-house enquiry; it is discretionary. Therefore, the Court upheld the Tribunal's order for de novo enquiry but only on the ground of denial of cross-examination, not on the ground of failure to provide a defence representative.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Denial of Cross-Examination - Natural Justice - The Tribunal directed de novo enquiry on two grounds: (1) failure to provide opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and (2) failure to provide defence representative. The High Court upheld the finding on cross-examination but set aside the ground regarding defence representative, holding that there is no legal or constitutional right to a defence representative in an in-house enquiry; it is discretionary. (Paras 2-4) B) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Defence Representative - No Legal Right - The employee has no legal or constitutional right to get a defence representative for cross-examining witnesses during an in-house enquiry; it is the discretion of the authority. Failure to provide one does not vitiate the enquiry. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and failure to provide a defence representative in a departmental enquiry vitiates the proceedings.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order for de novo enquiry, but only on the ground of denial of cross-examination opportunity. The ground regarding failure to provide defence representative was not upheld as there is no legal right to such representation.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to cross-examine
- departmental enquiry
- defence representative
- de novo enquiry
